tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 22 11:32:48 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: mIvDaq yIH

Teresh000 ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

ghItlh qurgh:

> Now I have a couple of questions/comment type things. In section 3.4 it says
> that the noun-noun construction given there is the Klingon possessive
> construction and when it's used you can't use a type 5s on the first noun.
> 
> What's the construction used when you want to have two nouns that do not have a 
> possesive relationship? Can you use type 5's on the first noun in that
> construction?
> 
> For example, how do I say "seashell"?
>

You have to understand the idea of "possession" more broadly.  In fact, there is
ample canon evidence that the Klingon N1-N2 construction is actually an 
example of what linguists call a genitive relationship, which includes simple
possession, but isn't limited to it.

Consider these phrases:

{romuluS HIq}  'Romulan ale' - the compound refers not to something owned by a
particular romulan (usually!) but to ale whose place of origin is Romulus.

{baS 'In} 'metal' drum' - reference here is to the material the drum is made of.

{yaS taj} - 'the officer's knife' - possessive as we usually understand the term.

The way I understand the N1-N2 compound is that the N1 noun restricts or defines
the N2 noun.  So, of the universal set of ales, the one from Romulus, of the
universal set of drums, the metal kind.  Of the universal set of knives, the one
that is associated with the officer.
 
> I'm not allowed to make new compound nouns so I have to say {bIQ'a' nagh DIr},
> but wait, that means "The shell of the sea" or the "sea's shell" and thats not
> what I want. What's the rule here? Do I have to make some long -bogh clause and
> end up saying "The shell that was found in the sea"? but that's not really what
> "seashell" means either. I guess I could do something like "the shell of an
> animal that lived in the sea, dies and was then washed up on the beach"... but
> that just doesn't jive with my feelings on Klingon brievity.
> 

In fact, I would say your first try was exactly right (except I think we now have
a word for the shell of an animal, ?{pel'aQ}).  There is some ambiguity in 'seashell' 
vs. 'the sea's shell', but that is the right way to phrase it, and what's a little
ambiguity among friends?

There's nothing in the idea of N1-N2 compounds as genitives that excludes the
adding of a suffix like {-Daq}, except that we're told explicitly in TKD that
we can't.

> What other rules do we have for using nouns together? Maybe {telDaq
> wovmoHwI'mey} is an example of a different noun-noun constrution that isn't
> possesive? Maybe I'm just dancing around the wrong tree 
> (most likely).

I go with the theory that it either is a mistake, or was intended to mean 'on 
the wing: lights", or the words were separated wrongly (there are other separation
errors on the poster, too).

- ter'eS

Back to archive top level